The following letter was shared by Patrik Frisk with Under Armour’s global teammates on June 8, 2020. https://undrarmr.co/30jSc2R
Source: A Message From Under Armour CEO Patrik Frisk
On June 8th UA’s CEO wrote a letter.
On April 22nd, 2016 Under Armour’s share price was 44.74.
Today, Under Armour’s share price is 8.49.
On June 8th UA’s CEO wrote a letter about programs and events that would be implemented to show that UA supports equality and will fight against social injustice. On the financial and sales side of things, UA’s latest major accomplishment is the facemask they sold out of in one day. Beyond that UA remains a company caught in a holding pattern. They can’t take a bold risk, because they aren’t as liquid as they have been with a shareholder price of 8.49.
Currently UA’s core customer is not the trendy, cool kid who purchases 6 pair per year. UA’s core customer buys out of necessity. They buy for back to school and then they wear that pair until it falls apart. UA doesn’t have the running community that purchases new shoes every 3-6 months after logging miles. UA doesn’t have the demographic purchasing based on historical accomplishments of athletes.
When Nike released their statement about investing into social justice and the Black community, this is what happened: the announcement on June 5th, a Friday, pushed their share price from 102 to 104 on June 8th, a Monday. When Frisk wrote and released this letter on June 8th UA’s share price was 10.22. By Thursday the share price was 8.52. What does this have to do with Frisk’s letter?
When a brand makes a decision to speak out against social injustice and for equality, it is a marketing play. Does it possibly help? It can’t be measured and isn’t qualitative. An announcement about supporting social issues doesn’t deliver measurable data. It does contribute to an emotional response. In the case of Nike, it improved Nike’s standing it seems. In UA’s case, nothing happened. This leads me to a different discussion.
Twitter feeds update so the link below may not show up on your phone. I was asked by one of my peers “Which established brand would have the most to gain by flipping their internal diversity outlook?” This might be the best question I’ve gotten on the sneaker industry in regard to the issues of social injustice and racism.
So if there is a well established sneaker brand who would have the most to gain by flipping their internal diversity outlook, who would it be? My pick is @Reebok
— J-A-R, Jah! (@DatsPB) June 24, 2020
As of late, the internal protests taking place at adidas and Nike are also happening in other brands and retailers, but the information isn’t reaching the public. The question posed above is one of the best I’ve seen because it’s asking about how a major company can take advantage of this moment to drive engagement. In the post, PB said his pick was Reebok. Reebok currently has products that are created by Black designers and traditional/heritage product worn by Black communities. Their work with Pyer Moss has been solid on the fashion side of things. The classic Reebok Workout is and will always be a ‘hood’ classic. When you add in Shaq and Iverson, Reebok isn’t the company that I’d suggest should flip their internal diversity. That honor in my opinion belongs to Under Armour.
When a company has taken a dive in the way that Under Armour has, recovery is a slow and extensive process. That process begins and ends with product and marketing. UA can make all of the claims about diversity and inclusion, but without real action inside of its walls the company won’t capture the segments it needs to show the growth that will inspire investor confidence.
I have to be careful here. To imply that a Black agenda, or hiring Black designers or promoting a Black person will improve the company, is presumptuous and silly. However, adding people from diverse backgrounds builds a unit that can foresee issues and adjust quicker. Great ideas arrive from brainstorming.
I can’t tell you what the mix is inside of Under Armour on their teams.
I can give you examples of missed opportunities that probably extend from ideas being pushed down and not acted on.
UAS
UA Storm Cyclone Pants show why Under Armour’s Failed UAS Could Have Worked but…
The rollout of UAS was botched asf. The brand chose Tim Coppens, a White dude from Belgium. I know that sounds bad, but if I’m a brand that hasn’t made a dent in the U.S., but I’m riding high on the strength of Steph Curry and footwear could be performing much better if there was apparel and a sense of cool around basketball, does it make sense that Under Armour went out and said, “How can we connect with cool? Oh, Tim Coppens.” ???? I have to believe that this happened because Black voices were drowned out or not listened too.
Now imagine had Under Armour utilized a diverse team of young designers, in house, and asked them to build the dopest collection of apparel for a small boutique format under the UAS label. The clothing would be cruelty free, made in a sustainable fashion and the apparel would connect with style conscious teens and adults looking for an elevated look. It would be sold in UAS boutiques in key cities… That would have been a game changer.
Dope S–t I Like: UAS Modern American Sportswear | I May Be Wrong
Instead what was delivered were drab images of moody mofos in catwalk gear. They rolled out the brand like it was a part of Paris fashion week with pop ups and 300 dollar jackets. The rollout was so out of touch it was shameful. Under Armour again attempted to jump the fence of cool by signing A$AP Rocky:
Nope.
A Committee of Athletes
By default diversity is embedded in athletics… except for baseball. Under Armour is in the unique position of working with and for athletes in niche sports and in mainstream sports. The brand that only has sport as a play has heavily ignored their roster of athletes, but with a diverse committee of athletes from all walks of life, the company could become a media company of incredible opportunity engendering itself to a variety of communities and improving their value almost immediately.
I could extend this post farther, but I think my point is simple, brands that lean on diversity create an opportunity for incredible growth in this moment and long term. The next generation are not their parents or grandparents. These kids and young adults are committed to tearing down these walls in a way that hasn’t been seen since the civil rights movement. Under Armour is at a point right now where they could make a serious adjustment. For the record companies like Merrell, Columbia and Cat could all learn from this moment to add a new segment/demographic. The question is, will they follow a retailer like FootLocker who just delivered a manifesto of action?
https://www.footlocker.com/stronger-together
